Bengaluru Court Rejects Actor Darshan's Plea Seeking Home-Cooked Food, Clothing In Prison
A city court in Bengaluru on Thursday rejected the application filed by Kannada actor Darshan Thoogdeep Srinivas seeking home cooked food, bedding etc from outside prison.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vishwanath C Gowdar said, “Prima facie, at this stage of proceedings, the report of Chief Medical Officer dated 22.07.2024 does not warrant the interference by this court, with respect to the food being provided to him. That apart, this court is also of the considered view that, the accused No.2 is not entitled to the relief sought, pursuant to Rule 728 of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021 as he is facing allegations of murder.”
Relying on the Apex court judgment in the case of Charles Sobraj V/s. Superintendent, Central Jail (1978) wherein cautioned was issued as to the mere fact that a prisoner is a poor or rich, high born or ill bread is certainly irrational as a differentia in secular, social, republic, "No fundamental rights can be extended to the citizen without reasonable restriction.”
Darshan was arrested in the Renukaswamy murder case, on June 11, 2024 and remanded to judicial custody on June 22. His petition refers to section 30 of Karnataka Prisons Act and says it allows undertrial prisoners to maintain themselves or to purchase/receive proper food, clothing, bedding subject to examination and to such rules as may be approved by IGP (Prisons).
In his application it was claimed he is suffering from stomach upsets and bouts of diarrhoea. Being a Cine Actor, had been following a diet, which was rich in protein in order to maintain a fit physique and muscular body by consuming home cooked food.
Special Public Prosecutor Prasanna Kumar, opposed the plea contending that his role in the murder is forthcoming along with his accomplices. Till now he has not at all complained regarding his ill-health before this court since 22.06.2024 (date of arrest) and no documents are produced to support his claim.
Further, Chapter-XII of the Karnataka Prisons Rules, 1974 provides for an elaborate scaling with respect to dietary plan which has to be followed by the Prison Authorities. The diet provided to each prisoner is adequate for catering to the necessary health requirements of the prisoners. Chapter-XXI of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual- 2021 provides for special diet/extra diet to those prisoners, who are certified/recommended by the Medical Examiner after such medical examination.
Moreover, Section 30 of the Prison Act has been subject to such regulations approved by the Inspector General of concerned prison. It is also categorically contended as to the accused No.2 has not made any such requests to the Inspector General of the Prisons, who is having discretionary power to consider the request.
Referring to the Rule 728(i) of the Prison Manual it was submitted that the provisions for retaining of their own clothing, bedding, footwear and eating as well as drinking vessels like plates, spoons, cups etc., for under trial prisoners other than those being alleged of having committed murder.
Findings:
The bench on going through the reports submitted by the Chief medical officer of the Prison said “The claim of the accused No.2 as to having repeated stomach upsets, diarrhoea is not forthcoming as per the report of the Chief Medical Officer dated 22.07.2024 as well as the earlier report of Chief Medical Officer dated 16.07.2024. The reports are neither containing advice nor recommendation to provide protein diet as claimed.”
It added “In the case on hand, having regard to the report of the Chief Medical Officer dated 22.07.2024, except generalised weakness, with an a advice for continued medication under supervision, bed rest and nutritious diet, there is no any other recommendations by the Chief Medical Officer for special diet, hospital diet or other diet as envisaged in the Karnataka Prison Manual, 2021.”
On conjoint reading of Rule 728 of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual-2021 and Section 30, 32 of Prison Act, the court rejected the application.
The high court which had earlier asked Darshan to move the magistrate court seeking the relief is now ought to consider the same as the petition filed by him is kept pending.